Saturday, December 16, 2006
Off to Chile
I haven't posted anything in awhile because I am off to the motherland this weekend and things have been hectic. (And if you didn't know I wasn't from the US of A... well now you know.) I'll be gone until next year (January 6th to be exact), so I probably won't be writing all that often,but you might as well check to see if I update this thing. You can of course email me to your hearts content, and I'll be happy to quickly delete them. Joking of course... I'll give it a glance before I delete.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Ovechkin fined for hit on Briere
I stated Sunday morning that I thought Alexander Ovechkin's hit on the Sabre's Daniel Briere, although warranting a penalty (because it was boarding), did not deserve additional action by the league. Well the league decided it deserved a $1000 fine. That kinda confuses me.
First thing, $1000 really is nothing. It seems like it's only meant to appease the Sabres while at the same time not be rediculously unreasonable. But it really makes no sense. The way I see it, the league should either say it was a "dirty" hit (i.e. a hit that intended to injure) and fine AND suspend him or you say it was an illegal but "clean" hit (i.e. warranting a penalty but not intended to hurt).
Ovechkin even says the league recognized that it wasn't a dirty hit... so what's the deal? If it's not dirty why fine him? The league certainly doesn't fine EVERY player who gets called for boarding, charging, or crosschecking (all penalties which could be considered "dirty" by the team taking the penalty). So what was so special about this hit?
If you watch the video you'll see that Ovechkin picks up a lot of speed and chases Briere out of the Caps defensive zone. Right after Briere dumps the puck, Ovechkin turn to check Briere (an entirely legal check since Briere just had possession of the puck). Right after Ovechkin turns Briere heads to the bench (turning his back to Ovechkin), and Ovechkin hits him with his shoulder in the back. Just a normal shoulder check, no charging, no follow through... simply nothing which someone could reasonably consider dirty.
Granted, I'ld be pissed if this had happened to a Cap, but I'ld have to be reasonable about it, all things considered. It was an unfortunate sequence, but I just don't see what the league expects Ovechkin to do if presented with the same situation. So the league fines Ovechkin a meager $1,000, and the Sabres are still going to retaliate in their next game. I just hope the fine for retaliation is much more than $1k...
First thing, $1000 really is nothing. It seems like it's only meant to appease the Sabres while at the same time not be rediculously unreasonable. But it really makes no sense. The way I see it, the league should either say it was a "dirty" hit (i.e. a hit that intended to injure) and fine AND suspend him or you say it was an illegal but "clean" hit (i.e. warranting a penalty but not intended to hurt).
Ovechkin even says the league recognized that it wasn't a dirty hit... so what's the deal? If it's not dirty why fine him? The league certainly doesn't fine EVERY player who gets called for boarding, charging, or crosschecking (all penalties which could be considered "dirty" by the team taking the penalty). So what was so special about this hit?
If you watch the video you'll see that Ovechkin picks up a lot of speed and chases Briere out of the Caps defensive zone. Right after Briere dumps the puck, Ovechkin turn to check Briere (an entirely legal check since Briere just had possession of the puck). Right after Ovechkin turns Briere heads to the bench (turning his back to Ovechkin), and Ovechkin hits him with his shoulder in the back. Just a normal shoulder check, no charging, no follow through... simply nothing which someone could reasonably consider dirty.
Granted, I'ld be pissed if this had happened to a Cap, but I'ld have to be reasonable about it, all things considered. It was an unfortunate sequence, but I just don't see what the league expects Ovechkin to do if presented with the same situation. So the league fines Ovechkin a meager $1,000, and the Sabres are still going to retaliate in their next game. I just hope the fine for retaliation is much more than $1k...
No Pull Harness Review: Part 2 - Reviewing the Easy Walk Harness
I've gotten a good amount of hits looking at my post on No-Pull Harnesses/Front lead harnesses from last year. So here is the update:
First thing, last year I commented on how most big chain pet stores (and most of the smaller local stores, as well) didn't carry front lead harnesses. Well, the first update is that practically every PetSmart and Petco I have been too seems to now carry the Easy Walk harness by Premier (the same one I got for Gilligan (my dog... technically a "beagle mix", but he looks just like a slightly taller than average beagle). This, of course, is understandable since Premier is a big name in leashes, harnesses, etc and is already carried by both mega-retailers. However, none of the chain stores seem to carry Wayne Hightower's harness or any of the Softouch Concepts harnesses. A shame I guess since I'm not going to shell out the cash to try those harnesses, so I can really only comment on the Easy Walk Harness.
On that note, here is my quick review of the Easy Walk Harness:
The harness took some getting used to for Gilligan. He still tries to chew at it when it first goes on, but once we get outside it's normally not a big deal.
Pros: It works. It doesn't choke him (like a choke collar) or his legs (like a sporn harness). The materials (webbing, clasps, etc.) are good quality and well constructed. A different color webbing is used for the strap which goes under the dogs chest, making it easier to put on correctly.
Cons: Although the differnt color webbing helps, it is still a little complicated to put on, especially when your dog isn't looking to put on the harness. Additionally, it takes more time and effort to put on then to just click the leash to the collar. The harness seems to loosen easily if slightly (that is, not enough to come off but enough to require more adjusting than you may want to deal with); I think this problem happens because of the smooth metal buckles it uses and I think it comes up more often when you set it "small."
The first con (the harness is not easy to put on) is one that I think, unfortunately, is a result of design that will be found in all front lead harnesses, and maybe even harnesses in general. The second con (the harness loosens) may be a result of the choice of buckles, which may not be an issue on the other harnesses. In general, I am happy with the harness, but to be honest I don't use it that often. Mostly because of the time required to put the harness on and but when I do use it... I enjoy it.
First thing, last year I commented on how most big chain pet stores (and most of the smaller local stores, as well) didn't carry front lead harnesses. Well, the first update is that practically every PetSmart and Petco I have been too seems to now carry the Easy Walk harness by Premier (the same one I got for Gilligan (my dog... technically a "beagle mix", but he looks just like a slightly taller than average beagle). This, of course, is understandable since Premier is a big name in leashes, harnesses, etc and is already carried by both mega-retailers. However, none of the chain stores seem to carry Wayne Hightower's harness or any of the Softouch Concepts harnesses. A shame I guess since I'm not going to shell out the cash to try those harnesses, so I can really only comment on the Easy Walk Harness.
On that note, here is my quick review of the Easy Walk Harness:
The harness took some getting used to for Gilligan. He still tries to chew at it when it first goes on, but once we get outside it's normally not a big deal.
Pros: It works. It doesn't choke him (like a choke collar) or his legs (like a sporn harness). The materials (webbing, clasps, etc.) are good quality and well constructed. A different color webbing is used for the strap which goes under the dogs chest, making it easier to put on correctly.
Cons: Although the differnt color webbing helps, it is still a little complicated to put on, especially when your dog isn't looking to put on the harness. Additionally, it takes more time and effort to put on then to just click the leash to the collar. The harness seems to loosen easily if slightly (that is, not enough to come off but enough to require more adjusting than you may want to deal with); I think this problem happens because of the smooth metal buckles it uses and I think it comes up more often when you set it "small."
The first con (the harness is not easy to put on) is one that I think, unfortunately, is a result of design that will be found in all front lead harnesses, and maybe even harnesses in general. The second con (the harness loosens) may be a result of the choice of buckles, which may not be an issue on the other harnesses. In general, I am happy with the harness, but to be honest I don't use it that often. Mostly because of the time required to put the harness on and but when I do use it... I enjoy it.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
College Hoops and The Caps beat the best
A few interesting happenings from last night in the world of sports:
- First, check out this D-III college basketball score. Thats right... Lincoln University beat Ohio State Marion, 201-78. Thats more than 5 points a minute scored by Lincoln. I also thought it was weird that apparently there is a school named Borat. ("The previous largest margin of victory in a Division III game was 112 points, set by Eureka College in a 149-37 victory over Borat on Nov. 29, 1989.")
- The Caps beat the "Eastern Conference leading" (Comcast SportsNet drove that point into the ground) Buffalo Sabres, 7-4. The Caps started well by scoring 3 goals in the first eight minutes. Buffalo's first goal came with about 5 minutes left in the first period. In a fluke play, Olie Kolzig went to fall on the puck with his catching glove and, instead of covering it, he squeezed it (like a watermelon seed) into the net.
Alex Ovechkin was ejected in the second period for a hit on Daniel Briere, which sent Briere head first into the boards. However, unlike Sabres coach Lindy Ruff, I don't think the hit deserves "disciplinary action." Briere had just passed the puck and Alex hit him square on his back, with Briere about 5 feet away from the boards. It was a perfect distance for Briere to fall and take the brunt of the fall with his head on the boards. It was a scary hit but I fail to see how this should result in any action by the league.
In fact, I was even surprised to see Oveckin ejected. Most boarding penalties come as a result of a hit in which the player hits his head on the boards. Most of the time they are so close to the boards they can brace themselves enough to take some of the fall with their arms (since they put their arms up on the boards). Briere, however, was at such a distance that he really could not prevent his head from hitting first and doubt Ovechkin planned anything more than just a check to the back. But I guess we'll see if the league sees it otherwise.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Ranking the DC Sports Newscasts
Back when there was a movie theatre on the corner of Wisconsin Ave. and Van Ness St. (where AU's Greenberg Theatre is now), I went to see a sneak preview of Jetsons: The Movie. I found the best spot in theatre: two seats hidden by themselves on the right side aisle which were practically in the middle. The theatre had a weird slanted wall that cut what would be the right rear half of the theatre off.
So I was sitting there and this guy comes walking right up to the seats and when he gets there (it was already dark by then) he seemed a little shocked to see me. He says something to the effect of "Ahh! Those are my favorite seats." And then walked away a little sad I guess but not at all mad (at least he didn't seem mad). Anyways, that was my one time run-in with Arch Campbell. Seemed like an alright fella, but he still creeps me out when his teaser (always ending with an overenthusiastic "NEXT!") and his wide-eyed reviews which I frequently disagree with.
This week I found out he's joining George Michael in leaving NBC 4. I was even surprised to find out that Susan Kidd and I.J. Hudson were leaving. Sad really. Not that I particularly liked them, but I grew up on them.
Well in light of this I've decided to rank the DC sports newscasts with my two cents on each:
4. WRC Channel 4 / NBC - With George Michael leaving this group is left floundering with Lindsay Czarniak and Dan Hellie. If you read my ramblings you know how I feel about Czarniak. Put it this way, there's a reason why I have "Czarniak's quote of the Day/Week/Etc" and its not because she's witty. Hellie is not bad, but he's a little too proper and doesn't seem to do much more than just read copy. In fact, I think he would do much better as an anchorman.
3. WJLA Channel 7 / ABC - I don't know what else to say but this: Vanilla. Not bad, but certainly not outstanding. Tim Brandt is fairly unanimated, but at least he knows his stuff. Greg Toland is serviceable but you're not winning a Super Bowl with him. He's a more animated but less "pretty boy" version of Hellie. And sometimes channel 7 throws a screwball by pulling crazyman Glenn Harris out of his crypt. (Mostly though, I see him on his Newschannel 8 show... is that even still on?!) These guys really took a tumble after Rene Knott left.
2. WTTG Channel 5 / Fox - I've always thought Dave Feldman is a better sportscaster than he is a soccer play-by-play man. (Maybe it's because I'm not a fan of his "It's in the net!" goal call.) Not that his play-by-play is bad, but he's got a very good personality for sportscasting. Lou Holder is good. He's a slightly more enjoyable newscaster than Toland. Finally, I'm not 100% sure how I feel about Dave Ross so we'll give him a solid C.
1. WUSA Channel 9 / CBS - Brett Haber used to be on ESPN's SportsCenter and he still announces like it. Most of those guys have "it" (what it takes to be a good sportscaster), but unlike a lot of those guys he doesn't come off sounding like such a tool. Levan Reid is stiff but has a good delivery and comes off seeming genuine. Sarah Walsh is also a very good sportscaster and, I think, earned her spot for her abilities instead of her looks (I'm looking at you Channel 4!).
So I was sitting there and this guy comes walking right up to the seats and when he gets there (it was already dark by then) he seemed a little shocked to see me. He says something to the effect of "Ahh! Those are my favorite seats." And then walked away a little sad I guess but not at all mad (at least he didn't seem mad). Anyways, that was my one time run-in with Arch Campbell. Seemed like an alright fella, but he still creeps me out when his teaser (always ending with an overenthusiastic "NEXT!") and his wide-eyed reviews which I frequently disagree with.
This week I found out he's joining George Michael in leaving NBC 4. I was even surprised to find out that Susan Kidd and I.J. Hudson were leaving. Sad really. Not that I particularly liked them, but I grew up on them.
Well in light of this I've decided to rank the DC sports newscasts with my two cents on each:
4. WRC Channel 4 / NBC - With George Michael leaving this group is left floundering with Lindsay Czarniak and Dan Hellie. If you read my ramblings you know how I feel about Czarniak. Put it this way, there's a reason why I have "Czarniak's quote of the Day/Week/Etc" and its not because she's witty. Hellie is not bad, but he's a little too proper and doesn't seem to do much more than just read copy. In fact, I think he would do much better as an anchorman.
3. WJLA Channel 7 / ABC - I don't know what else to say but this: Vanilla. Not bad, but certainly not outstanding. Tim Brandt is fairly unanimated, but at least he knows his stuff. Greg Toland is serviceable but you're not winning a Super Bowl with him. He's a more animated but less "pretty boy" version of Hellie. And sometimes channel 7 throws a screwball by pulling crazyman Glenn Harris out of his crypt. (Mostly though, I see him on his Newschannel 8 show... is that even still on?!) These guys really took a tumble after Rene Knott left.
2. WTTG Channel 5 / Fox - I've always thought Dave Feldman is a better sportscaster than he is a soccer play-by-play man. (Maybe it's because I'm not a fan of his "It's in the net!" goal call.) Not that his play-by-play is bad, but he's got a very good personality for sportscasting. Lou Holder is good. He's a slightly more enjoyable newscaster than Toland. Finally, I'm not 100% sure how I feel about Dave Ross so we'll give him a solid C.
1. WUSA Channel 9 / CBS - Brett Haber used to be on ESPN's SportsCenter and he still announces like it. Most of those guys have "it" (what it takes to be a good sportscaster), but unlike a lot of those guys he doesn't come off sounding like such a tool. Levan Reid is stiff but has a good delivery and comes off seeming genuine. Sarah Walsh is also a very good sportscaster and, I think, earned her spot for her abilities instead of her looks (I'm looking at you Channel 4!).
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Skins, Caps, Wizards and Terps Predictions
Almost 3 weeks ago I was ready to talk up the Caps. I was entirely ready to use the overused and obviously premature "if the playoffs ended today" line by pointing out that the Caps would be in. So that day I went to write and lo and behold, I was surprised to find that good ole' Teddy L. beat me to the punch (oddly enough it was in his 500th post). So I didn't post, but the braggadocio karma still hit. The bottom of my "slurpie cup of happiness" busted... 6 losses in a row, including two loses to the lowly Bruins.
So not only were the Redskins catatonic and the Wizards not up to last years par, the Caps offense just couldn't make up for the defense. (The Caps were outscored 9-25 during those 6 games) Even the Terps football tanked losing to Boston College, getting a reprieve when Miami beat BC, and losing to Wake Forest at home this past week. My only solace comes in the surprisingly good Terps basketball team (currently undefeated and the only 8 win team in the nation).
But then the Redskins win (although they looked kinda like a newborn horse trying to stand up in the process), the Caps beat a southeast conference foe who have had their number recently (Tampa Bay, although that could be said about the Trashers and Canes as well), and the Wiz... well, they squeaked by the Hawks... we'll just leave it at that.
So what does all this mean? Here is my "if the season ended today"-ish predicitons:
Redskins: I've already spoken here... they're dead... i.e. good for another 2 wins. Maybe we can hope for a good draft pick.
Caps: Very intriguing. Alexander Semin returns and the teams looks like an offensive powerhouse against a very good team. I'll say 7th place in the East, giving their first round opponents a scare, but losing in 6.
Wizards: Basketball, especially the NBA, is one of those games which I can't watch sometimes because I seriously get too mad. The referees have TOO much control of the game and in the NBA it's compounded by how much they protect their star players. Unfortunately Gilbert Arenas isn't star enough... oh yeah and they don't play any defense. They might get by a first round series, but will lose whenever they play the Cavs or Heat.
Terps Football: They're supposedly going to play Navy (in the Meineke Car Care Bowl) or Purdue (in the Champs Sports Bowl). I feel good about the Terps chances against either opponent... but I would think the Mieneke Car Care Bowl would prefer to have the Terps there to get themselves a bona fide "Crab Bowl."
Terps Basketball: Shhhhh, I don't want to talk about it.... karma is listening.
So not only were the Redskins catatonic and the Wizards not up to last years par, the Caps offense just couldn't make up for the defense. (The Caps were outscored 9-25 during those 6 games) Even the Terps football tanked losing to Boston College, getting a reprieve when Miami beat BC, and losing to Wake Forest at home this past week. My only solace comes in the surprisingly good Terps basketball team (currently undefeated and the only 8 win team in the nation).
But then the Redskins win (although they looked kinda like a newborn horse trying to stand up in the process), the Caps beat a southeast conference foe who have had their number recently (Tampa Bay, although that could be said about the Trashers and Canes as well), and the Wiz... well, they squeaked by the Hawks... we'll just leave it at that.
So what does all this mean? Here is my "if the season ended today"-ish predicitons:
Redskins: I've already spoken here... they're dead... i.e. good for another 2 wins. Maybe we can hope for a good draft pick.
Caps: Very intriguing. Alexander Semin returns and the teams looks like an offensive powerhouse against a very good team. I'll say 7th place in the East, giving their first round opponents a scare, but losing in 6.
Wizards: Basketball, especially the NBA, is one of those games which I can't watch sometimes because I seriously get too mad. The referees have TOO much control of the game and in the NBA it's compounded by how much they protect their star players. Unfortunately Gilbert Arenas isn't star enough... oh yeah and they don't play any defense. They might get by a first round series, but will lose whenever they play the Cavs or Heat.
Terps Football: They're supposedly going to play Navy (in the Meineke Car Care Bowl) or Purdue (in the Champs Sports Bowl). I feel good about the Terps chances against either opponent... but I would think the Mieneke Car Care Bowl would prefer to have the Terps there to get themselves a bona fide "Crab Bowl."
Terps Basketball: Shhhhh, I don't want to talk about it.... karma is listening.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Redskins Pyrite
I had resigned myself to not writing about the woeful Redskins, who had truly become among the worst teams in the NFL. But I just can't help myself because driving home from FedEx today, I was listening to the Redskins post game show and heard ridiculous optimism from Redskins fans who dared use the term "win out." The Redskins at 9-7? How insane is that? Did they even watch today's game? Or did they only watch Chris Cooley's touchdown and Sean Taylor's interception?
The Redskins are still a bad team, it's just that today the defense tackled and play more like last years defense. But after changing QBs, Al Saunder's complicated offense is still not clicking. Mark Brunell would have been the winning QB had he still been the starter because Campbell did nothing extremely out of the ordinary.
Don't get me wrong, I think Jason Campbell has got huge potential, but take away that 66 yard touchdown to Cooley and Campbell has a grand total of 52 yards passing. And he threw 2 interceptions, one of which was negated by a roughing the passer penalty. Don't be fooled, the defense won this game, but only because they played slightly better. Remember, last week (like this week) the Redskins scored 17 points, it's just that this week the defense didn't give up the second touchdown, keeping the Panthers to 13 points (instead of the 20 they gave up to the Bucs).
There are 5 more games left in the season and I would put a 2.5 on the over/under. I seriously doubt they win a game on the road (New Orleans and St. Louis), they seem positively listless away from home. They probably lose one more at home (maybe the Giants game), and that would put them at 6-10 (7-9 if they're lucky and pull an away win or win out at home). Yup, right about where I think this team deserves to be.
The Redskins are still a bad team, it's just that today the defense tackled and play more like last years defense. But after changing QBs, Al Saunder's complicated offense is still not clicking. Mark Brunell would have been the winning QB had he still been the starter because Campbell did nothing extremely out of the ordinary.
Don't get me wrong, I think Jason Campbell has got huge potential, but take away that 66 yard touchdown to Cooley and Campbell has a grand total of 52 yards passing. And he threw 2 interceptions, one of which was negated by a roughing the passer penalty. Don't be fooled, the defense won this game, but only because they played slightly better. Remember, last week (like this week) the Redskins scored 17 points, it's just that this week the defense didn't give up the second touchdown, keeping the Panthers to 13 points (instead of the 20 they gave up to the Bucs).
There are 5 more games left in the season and I would put a 2.5 on the over/under. I seriously doubt they win a game on the road (New Orleans and St. Louis), they seem positively listless away from home. They probably lose one more at home (maybe the Giants game), and that would put them at 6-10 (7-9 if they're lucky and pull an away win or win out at home). Yup, right about where I think this team deserves to be.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Gillers in Shenandoah NP and Zoomr
A few weeks ago we went for a short afternoon hike with Gilligan in Shenandoah NP. He loved it and smelled everything on the way in and out. This is him at an overlook along the AT. A few seconds after this picture he got a tick on his leg... Cindy pulled that little bastard off quick!
oh and this picture is hosted by Zooomr.com (btw, remember the extra "o" in Zooomr), a sweet (and free) photo hosting service... like flickr, but better. And in case you wondering, yes the reason i posted this is so i could upgrade to a pro account.
oh and this picture is hosted by Zooomr.com (btw, remember the extra "o" in Zooomr), a sweet (and free) photo hosting service... like flickr, but better. And in case you wondering, yes the reason i posted this is so i could upgrade to a pro account.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Go bake a cake.
This probably only applies to you if:
1. You live in the DC area (or near a Safeway, Vons, etc.)
AND
2. You want to bake a cake at some point.
So here's the deal. Safeway currently has a Buy One Get One (BOGO) free deal for Betty Crocker's Super Moist Cake Mix. (They sell for about $2) But they are also having a deal that if you buy 10 Betty Crocker items you get $10 off. SOOOO if you take 10 cake mixes up to the register, they should come out to between -$0.70 and $2.00 total for 10 cake mixes.
The Math: 5 boxes (plus 5 free boxes) x $2 = $10 - $10 (for getting 10 Betty Crocker items) = some where around $0, depending on how much one box sells for. Kinda complicated, I know, but it's worth a try... to see how it has worked for others check out the SlickDeals thread on the deal.
1. You live in the DC area (or near a Safeway, Vons, etc.)
AND
2. You want to bake a cake at some point.
So here's the deal. Safeway currently has a Buy One Get One (BOGO) free deal for Betty Crocker's Super Moist Cake Mix. (They sell for about $2) But they are also having a deal that if you buy 10 Betty Crocker items you get $10 off. SOOOO if you take 10 cake mixes up to the register, they should come out to between -$0.70 and $2.00 total for 10 cake mixes.
The Math: 5 boxes (plus 5 free boxes) x $2 = $10 - $10 (for getting 10 Betty Crocker items) = some where around $0, depending on how much one box sells for. Kinda complicated, I know, but it's worth a try... to see how it has worked for others check out the SlickDeals thread on the deal.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Which photo do you LikeBetter.com
So a little while back I wrote about the 20 questions site. Cool site but it would be wrong every so often. Well, now check out LikeBetter.com.
Sort of the same concept, except it guesses things about you after you tell it which picture (of two) you like better. Interesting concept....
Sort of the same concept, except it guesses things about you after you tell it which picture (of two) you like better. Interesting concept....
Did you need a new pair of shoes? Footlocker Sale this weekend.
This weekend (Oct 26 to Oct 28) Footlocker (which also owns Champs, and Footaction) is having their Friends & Family sale, which means you get 30% off (and an additional 10% if it's over $100) by using these codes:
FF6TV345 at FootLocker
FF6TVL66 at Champs
FF6TVPL6 at Footaction.
Online, though, they seem to share the same inventory. If want to walk into the stores check out this SlickDeals' post for printable coupons.
FF6TV345 at FootLocker
FF6TVL66 at Champs
FF6TVPL6 at Footaction.
Online, though, they seem to share the same inventory. If want to walk into the stores check out this SlickDeals' post for printable coupons.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
NFL Rankings - Week 8
Three weeks ago I lost my internet connection right before the weekend, which made it nearly impossible for me to post my entirely useless (to you) rankings. The past few weeks I just didn't feel like. But then last week I saw this post over at ArmchairGM.com.
The user (DNL) did a BCS like ranking of the NFL (yes I don't like the BCS system either, but there is some merit to it when it comes to ranking). I liked the idea a lot, except for one problem: DNL used only the ESPN ranking to act as the human element. So I decided to do the same thing but instead I included human rankings from FoxSports (Peter Schrager), and CBS Sportsline (Pete Prisco). I wanted to add CNNSI's (Dr. Z) NFL power ranking, but that doesn't get released until midweek (tomorrow I'll add it and see how much of a difference it makes.
I also left out one "computer" from DNL's list (the one done by an ArmchairGM user) because I don't know if it will be consistently posted. I did the BCS thing, where all the human rankings are equally balanced and the computer average constitute a "5th human ranking."
And, like with the BCS, the highest and lowest ranking from the computers are dropped from the average (just to keep crazy computer stuff a in check).
I also ran a "straight-up" average where every ranking is taken equally and no ranking (i.e. high/low) is dropped. That way I could see where the computer or human bias was.
Here are the more humanized "BCS-style" rankings (with "straight-up" ranking in parenthesis):
1. Chicago Bears (1)
2. Indianapolis Colts (2)
3. New England Patriots (3)
4. Denver Broncos (5)
5. New Orleans Saints (6)
6. New York Giants (4)
7. San Diego Chargers (7)
8. Baltimore Ravens (8)
9. Atlanta Falcons (9)
10. Cincinnati Bengals (10)
11. Carolina Panthers (13)
12. Seattle Seahawks (14)
13. Minnesota Vikings (12)
14. Philadelphia Eagles (11)
15. St. Louis Rams (15)
16. Jacksonville Jaguars (16)
17. Dallas Cowboys (17)
18. Pittsburgh Steelers (18)
19. Kansas City Chiefs (19)
19. New York Jets (20)
21. Tampa Bay Buccaneers (21)
22. Washington Redskins (22)
23. Green Bay Packers (23)
24. Buffalo Bills (24)
25. San Francisco 49ers (26)
26. Cleveland Browns (25)
26. Houston Texans (27)
28. Tennessee Titans (31)
29. Detroit Lions (28)
30. Miami Dolphins (29)
31. Oakland Raiders (32)
32. Arizona Cardinals (30)
A few thoughts:
The user (DNL) did a BCS like ranking of the NFL (yes I don't like the BCS system either, but there is some merit to it when it comes to ranking). I liked the idea a lot, except for one problem: DNL used only the ESPN ranking to act as the human element. So I decided to do the same thing but instead I included human rankings from FoxSports (Peter Schrager), and CBS Sportsline (Pete Prisco). I wanted to add CNNSI's (Dr. Z) NFL power ranking, but that doesn't get released until midweek (tomorrow I'll add it and see how much of a difference it makes.
I also left out one "computer" from DNL's list (the one done by an ArmchairGM user) because I don't know if it will be consistently posted. I did the BCS thing, where all the human rankings are equally balanced and the computer average constitute a "5th human ranking."
And, like with the BCS, the highest and lowest ranking from the computers are dropped from the average (just to keep crazy computer stuff a in check).
I also ran a "straight-up" average where every ranking is taken equally and no ranking (i.e. high/low) is dropped. That way I could see where the computer or human bias was.
Here are the more humanized "BCS-style" rankings (with "straight-up" ranking in parenthesis):
1. Chicago Bears (1)
2. Indianapolis Colts (2)
3. New England Patriots (3)
4. Denver Broncos (5)
5. New Orleans Saints (6)
6. New York Giants (4)
7. San Diego Chargers (7)
8. Baltimore Ravens (8)
9. Atlanta Falcons (9)
10. Cincinnati Bengals (10)
11. Carolina Panthers (13)
12. Seattle Seahawks (14)
13. Minnesota Vikings (12)
14. Philadelphia Eagles (11)
15. St. Louis Rams (15)
16. Jacksonville Jaguars (16)
17. Dallas Cowboys (17)
18. Pittsburgh Steelers (18)
19. Kansas City Chiefs (19)
19. New York Jets (20)
21. Tampa Bay Buccaneers (21)
22. Washington Redskins (22)
23. Green Bay Packers (23)
24. Buffalo Bills (24)
25. San Francisco 49ers (26)
26. Cleveland Browns (25)
26. Houston Texans (27)
28. Tennessee Titans (31)
29. Detroit Lions (28)
30. Miami Dolphins (29)
31. Oakland Raiders (32)
32. Arizona Cardinals (30)
A few thoughts:
- The "straight-up" ranking pretty much follows the "BCS-style" ranking except for towards the end (where the teams are pretty much equally bad) and with a few teams, Giants, Eagles and to a lesser extent Vikings. We'll discuss that in a second.
- Although, all the humans like the Broncos (#3 in every human ranking) more than the Patriots (#4 in every human ranking), the computers prefer the Pats. In fact, the computer prefer the Pats so much more that it was enough to drop the Broncos (averaging #8 in computer rankings) behind the Pats in the "BCS-style" ranking.
- As I mentioned the "straight-up" and "BCS-style" rankings pretty much agree. Well, except when it comes to the Giants and Eagles, and to a lesser extent the Vikings. The Giants (#6 "BCS-Style") average a #3 ranking with computers and the Eagles (#14 "BCS-Style") average #11 (when removing high and low) and #9 (without removing high and low) with the computer rankings. That means the computers seem to like the Giants and Eagles (and Vikings) more than the humans. My guess is that the computers give more credit for the Giants' strength of schedule and the humans don't give enough credit for close games (which accounts for all of the Eagles' losses).
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Lindsay Czarniak Quote of the Week
"He's running so fast, he falls out of his shoe."
Describing Hines Ward's reception for a touchdown where he loses a shoe about 30 yards away from the end zone and runs the rest of the way missing a shoe. At no point during the whole play (even once he gets into the end zone) does he fall.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Project Runway 3 Finale: Jeffrey wins
Although I haven't mentioned it, I have been following the 3rd season of Project Runway. I had tried to avoid watching since I was really turned away by the fact that the producers have a say in the results. In fact, if you remember from earlier this year, I completely hated how season 2 ended. I even had an imaginary back-and-forth with the "winner", Chloe.
Anyways, following that farce and the fact that, as a whole, I didn't particularly like this bunch of designers (personality-wise), I tried not to follow the show. But I succumbed and followed it by proxy (that is, Cindy watched it consistently, and I watched for the final pieces and who was eliminated). I grew to like the designs of Bonnie, Allison, Michael, Uli and Jeffrey. Bonnie and Allison were eliminated relatively early, but Michael, Uli and Jeffrey made it to the finals (Laura also made the finals, but I thought, although she was good, she was never really innovative).
So I was happy to see those three in the finale. I felt Michael and Uli were consistently good but never entirely outstanding. Jeffery, though, was much more daring... he really swung for the fences on every piece. Sometimes he struck out and sometimes he hit a homerun. And on his final collection he hit more homers than the competition, so I agree that he deserved to win. So I guess things have come around in the Project Runway world... now let see if Top Chef is worth it this year.
Anyways, following that farce and the fact that, as a whole, I didn't particularly like this bunch of designers (personality-wise), I tried not to follow the show. But I succumbed and followed it by proxy (that is, Cindy watched it consistently, and I watched for the final pieces and who was eliminated). I grew to like the designs of Bonnie, Allison, Michael, Uli and Jeffrey. Bonnie and Allison were eliminated relatively early, but Michael, Uli and Jeffrey made it to the finals (Laura also made the finals, but I thought, although she was good, she was never really innovative).
So I was happy to see those three in the finale. I felt Michael and Uli were consistently good but never entirely outstanding. Jeffery, though, was much more daring... he really swung for the fences on every piece. Sometimes he struck out and sometimes he hit a homerun. And on his final collection he hit more homers than the competition, so I agree that he deserved to win. So I guess things have come around in the Project Runway world... now let see if Top Chef is worth it this year.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Back on the Hook: Heroes
The 2000s should probably come to be known as the point where television became like the movies. I think 2 television shows can take most of that credit, 24 and CSI. 24 truly borrowed from movie making, first by taking a "movie star" in the lead role and second by using the shoot-em-up/explosions you used to only find in theatres. The CSI series doesn't concentrated on that aspect, but it added movie-like special effects to the police/investigative genre (remade popular in the 90s by NYPD Blue and Law and Order). So although, CSI made it okay to have episodes like "Code Black" on Grey's Anatomy, 24 really paved the way for shows like Lost and the already canceled, Heist (although those are ensemble casts instead of a "movie star"-led series).
I never got into 24 but I was looking forward to Lost when I first heard about it, but I missed the premier and then just never followed up on it. I never thought I would get into these kind of shows. I mostly didn't like the hype around the shows but I also didn't like how a plot, which would work better as a movie, would be put into a television series because a TV series NEEDS to draw out the story line. So I was thinking I was immune to these shows... until this season: I am all about Heroes.
I'm stupidly into it even though I fully realize there is no chance this is ending well. One of three things is going to happen, and all them are bad: 1. They're going to cancel the show; 2. It'll start to suck; or 3. They're going to draw the story out over 8 season, and I'm going to spend each summers with a "cliffhanger" looking forward to another season of entirely unlikely twists and pseudo-resolutions to current plots.
Oh well... if you'd like to join me just click on that link up there (or this one one), get caught up, and watch monday nights at 8 pm on NBC! God, I'm retarded!
I never got into 24 but I was looking forward to Lost when I first heard about it, but I missed the premier and then just never followed up on it. I never thought I would get into these kind of shows. I mostly didn't like the hype around the shows but I also didn't like how a plot, which would work better as a movie, would be put into a television series because a TV series NEEDS to draw out the story line. So I was thinking I was immune to these shows... until this season: I am all about Heroes.
I'm stupidly into it even though I fully realize there is no chance this is ending well. One of three things is going to happen, and all them are bad: 1. They're going to cancel the show; 2. It'll start to suck; or 3. They're going to draw the story out over 8 season, and I'm going to spend each summers with a "cliffhanger" looking forward to another season of entirely unlikely twists and pseudo-resolutions to current plots.
Oh well... if you'd like to join me just click on that link up there (or this one one), get caught up, and watch monday nights at 8 pm on NBC! God, I'm retarded!
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Redskins hit bottom
The Redskins can official go no lower. Sure, they could lose 45-0 at home against the Raiders... but they're not playing them this year. Losing to the lowly Titans and their awful rookie quarterback at FedEx Field on Sunday will have to substitute for "rock bottom." We knew the offense wasn't clicking, and that the secondary was bad, but at least the run defense was good. Well, at least until these last two games.
I could give you figures like, the Redskins have allowed a 100-yard rushers in each of the past two weeks or that the Redskins have 5 takeaways (only the Houston Texans have less with 3), but nothing really explains it better than this: The offense is struggling like the end of last year and the defense is nowhere near as effective as last year.
Well let me restate that: The defense is alot like last year except that they aren't forcing turnovers or scaring anyone. Last year the Redskins seemed to always get a turnover when they needed it and this year they're giving up too many 3rd and longs for first downs.
So I'm glad they lost because one of three things was going to happen this week: 1. The Redskins win big and they actually get better the next few weeks. (The ideal situation, which apparently had no chance of happening.) 2. The Redskins have a close win and get a reason to become complacent (Probably the worst situation, becuase they would continue to barely beat scrubs and losing to the games that matter.) and 3. The Redskins lose.
The reason #3 is better than #2 is because this forces the Redskins to make changes they need to make. In essence, it makes them desperate. These past two games actually remind me of last season when the Redskins lost 2 straight home games (to the Raiders and Chargers) to drop to 5-6. They went on to win 5 straight to finish 10-6... We'll see if they can do something similar this year. Considering next week they're going to play the Colts in Indy, I seriously doubt it.
I could give you figures like, the Redskins have allowed a 100-yard rushers in each of the past two weeks or that the Redskins have 5 takeaways (only the Houston Texans have less with 3), but nothing really explains it better than this: The offense is struggling like the end of last year and the defense is nowhere near as effective as last year.
Well let me restate that: The defense is alot like last year except that they aren't forcing turnovers or scaring anyone. Last year the Redskins seemed to always get a turnover when they needed it and this year they're giving up too many 3rd and longs for first downs.
So I'm glad they lost because one of three things was going to happen this week: 1. The Redskins win big and they actually get better the next few weeks. (The ideal situation, which apparently had no chance of happening.) 2. The Redskins have a close win and get a reason to become complacent (Probably the worst situation, becuase they would continue to barely beat scrubs and losing to the games that matter.) and 3. The Redskins lose.
The reason #3 is better than #2 is because this forces the Redskins to make changes they need to make. In essence, it makes them desperate. These past two games actually remind me of last season when the Redskins lost 2 straight home games (to the Raiders and Chargers) to drop to 5-6. They went on to win 5 straight to finish 10-6... We'll see if they can do something similar this year. Considering next week they're going to play the Colts in Indy, I seriously doubt it.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Singing Rabbit Skittles Commercial
I realize I am WAY late for the party, but I just love that Skittles Commerical with the singing rabbit. It just gets stupid funnier everytime I watch it.
Friday, October 06, 2006
TACA Keeps it Real
I'm going to Chile for the Christmas/New Years holidays and the cheapest flight I could find was on TACA, an El Salvadorean airline. So I was checking their baggage policy and found an interesting tidbit under "Carry-on baggage." Go ahead and read the policy and making note of the 7th item down on the list of permitted additional carry-on. (Don't forget to come back when you are done.)
Okay, so if you are too lazy to go read it, this is what it says:
Yup! Out of nowhere TACA gets nasty with the handicap.
In all fairness, invalido is an acceptable term in Spanish... but really, no one caught this? Or am I crazy for thinking that is kinda wrong? (And who decided invalid, in this case, is pronounced with the emphasis on "LID" instead of "VA"? This also reminds me of how I hate that there can be different pronounciations for words that are spelled alike... like "Live from New York" and "Live Free or Die")
Okay, so if you are too lazy to go read it, this is what it says:
A fully collapsible invalid’s wheelchair or any other orthopedic device of passenger’s use provided that passenger is dependent upon them.
Yup! Out of nowhere TACA gets nasty with the handicap.
In all fairness, invalido is an acceptable term in Spanish... but really, no one caught this? Or am I crazy for thinking that is kinda wrong? (And who decided invalid, in this case, is pronounced with the emphasis on "LID" instead of "VA"? This also reminds me of how I hate that there can be different pronounciations for words that are spelled alike... like "Live from New York" and "Live Free or Die")
Saturday, September 30, 2006
NFL Week 4 Rankings
I like being right. So, I enjoyed how my rankings panned out. Granted, I waited until 2 weekends had gone by, but I think that is a much better way of evaluating teams as opposed to, in essence, guessing at it in the preseason.
Anyways, this week I'll try and remember to include the Carolina Panthers (who would have been ranked with the other "Bad" 0-2 teams last week). I realize that the bottom categories are overloaded (I only have 11 teams, or 34%, above "The Middle") but that will even itself out once teams establish themselves better. For now, not many teams seem worth of being called "good teams."
I'll also explain a few things: First, there should be little to no reason to drastically move teams, so teams will/can, almost without exception, only move one category each week (i.e. no team should go from "Bad" to "Step Away" in one week.); Second, for the sake of space I probably won't discuss teams coming off their bye week. And third, teams that have moved up will be bolded and teams that have dropped will be italicized. Now on to the ranking:
The Best (Indianapolis, San Diego, Cincinnati, Seattle) - Everyone stays the same here. While San Diego sat at home this weekend, the rest of these teams came out and beat formidable opponents (Maybe excepting Seattle, who beat a NY Giants team I don't entirely respect).
The Questionable Best (Chicago, Baltimore, Jacksonville) - Chicago and Baltimore stay here by barely beating teams they should have pummeled if they wanted to be among The Best. Jacksonville played Indy close, but they could drop if they lose to the Redskins (probably not happening).
Step Away (New Orleans, Atlanta, New England, Denver) - New Orleans stays here because of their questionable competition and their emotional win on Monday night. Atlanta and New England drop because of entirely different losses. (New England was uninspired and Atlanta was, practically, beaten by a nation.) Denver joins this group by being the only "Middle" team to win.
The Middle (Dallas, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, NY Jets) - Remember how last week I put Philly and the Jets in the "Not So Good" category? Well, they still deserve to be there, since they beat the lowly 49ers and Bills this week. But they get moved up because of their records. (Philly, will most likely stay here for a while, as it continues its early creampuff schedule next week against the Packers, but the Jets should come back to earth against the Colts and then the Jaguars.) Pittsburgh drops because they're beginning to show their true mediocre colors. In fact, Bill Simmons writes about a theory (which he discounts) about how Pittsburgh is going through the "Super Bowl Loser Curse" because they were supposed to lose the Super Bowl (as the lesser team) but since the refs intervened, they ended up winning. I don't think it's all that crazy.
The Not So Good (Kansas City, St. Louis, NY Giants, Buffalo, Carolina) - Buffalo and New York begin what I predict to be a season long oscillation between the "Middle" and the "Bad" for each team. I moved up Carolina, for beating a conference rival on the road, but they looked really bad doing it. Once again... I really don't respect the NFL South.
The Bad (Washington, Miami, San Francisco, Arizona) - Washington stays here because they only slightly improved against Houston. Too many penalties, the defensive line looked bad and the pass defense looked worse. The rest of the teams stay here because they lost, but not bad enough to be dropped to "No Chance".
No Chance (Tampa Bay, Oakland, Detroit, Houston, Green Bay, Tennessee, Cleveland) - Everyone stays put and welcome their new friend, Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay drops mostly because of the Chris Simms injury. Now I have never thought Chris Simms was a good quarterback (he certainly hadn't shown me any reason to change my mind this year) but his team liked him. And that has to mess with them. m seemed to trust him.
Anyways, this week I'll try and remember to include the Carolina Panthers (who would have been ranked with the other "Bad" 0-2 teams last week). I realize that the bottom categories are overloaded (I only have 11 teams, or 34%, above "The Middle") but that will even itself out once teams establish themselves better. For now, not many teams seem worth of being called "good teams."
I'll also explain a few things: First, there should be little to no reason to drastically move teams, so teams will/can, almost without exception, only move one category each week (i.e. no team should go from "Bad" to "Step Away" in one week.); Second, for the sake of space I probably won't discuss teams coming off their bye week. And third, teams that have moved up will be bolded and teams that have dropped will be italicized. Now on to the ranking:
The Best (Indianapolis, San Diego, Cincinnati, Seattle) - Everyone stays the same here. While San Diego sat at home this weekend, the rest of these teams came out and beat formidable opponents (Maybe excepting Seattle, who beat a NY Giants team I don't entirely respect).
The Questionable Best (Chicago, Baltimore, Jacksonville) - Chicago and Baltimore stay here by barely beating teams they should have pummeled if they wanted to be among The Best. Jacksonville played Indy close, but they could drop if they lose to the Redskins (probably not happening).
Step Away (New Orleans, Atlanta, New England, Denver) - New Orleans stays here because of their questionable competition and their emotional win on Monday night. Atlanta and New England drop because of entirely different losses. (New England was uninspired and Atlanta was, practically, beaten by a nation.) Denver joins this group by being the only "Middle" team to win.
The Middle (Dallas, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, NY Jets) - Remember how last week I put Philly and the Jets in the "Not So Good" category? Well, they still deserve to be there, since they beat the lowly 49ers and Bills this week. But they get moved up because of their records. (Philly, will most likely stay here for a while, as it continues its early creampuff schedule next week against the Packers, but the Jets should come back to earth against the Colts and then the Jaguars.) Pittsburgh drops because they're beginning to show their true mediocre colors. In fact, Bill Simmons writes about a theory (which he discounts) about how Pittsburgh is going through the "Super Bowl Loser Curse" because they were supposed to lose the Super Bowl (as the lesser team) but since the refs intervened, they ended up winning. I don't think it's all that crazy.
The Not So Good (Kansas City, St. Louis, NY Giants, Buffalo, Carolina) - Buffalo and New York begin what I predict to be a season long oscillation between the "Middle" and the "Bad" for each team. I moved up Carolina, for beating a conference rival on the road, but they looked really bad doing it. Once again... I really don't respect the NFL South.
The Bad (Washington, Miami, San Francisco, Arizona) - Washington stays here because they only slightly improved against Houston. Too many penalties, the defensive line looked bad and the pass defense looked worse. The rest of the teams stay here because they lost, but not bad enough to be dropped to "No Chance".
No Chance (Tampa Bay, Oakland, Detroit, Houston, Green Bay, Tennessee, Cleveland) - Everyone stays put and welcome their new friend, Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay drops mostly because of the Chris Simms injury. Now I have never thought Chris Simms was a good quarterback (he certainly hadn't shown me any reason to change my mind this year) but his team liked him. And that has to mess with them. m seemed to trust him.
Friday, September 29, 2006
New NBA Ball
So this came out awhile ago, and I noticed I had started the post but never uploaded it... here it is:
I'm looking forward to seeing the NBA play with their new ball. Not that I'm expecting anything different, I just think it looks snazzy. Oh and if you want one, you can order it from the NBA Store... It's a mere $100.
I'm looking forward to seeing the NBA play with their new ball. Not that I'm expecting anything different, I just think it looks snazzy. Oh and if you want one, you can order it from the NBA Store... It's a mere $100.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)